Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO/Thermodynamics/Insulin- discuss!!
Options
theledger5
Posts: 63 Member
in Debate Club
Read this article and a few others after a FB discussion on losing weight. I am confused now that losing weight is not just about CICO. Discuss!
https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant
https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant
35
Replies
-
No wonder you are confused. Don't read woo articles and you'll be good.27
-
There were a few other similar articles posted also based on research from Harvard university. It made me question everything I believe !6
-
Very good article.
You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.29 -
Go read a bunch of posts in the "success stories" forum here. Some of those people used ketogenic diets. Many just counted calories while trying to eat mostly nutritious foods they enjoy, plus perhaps a few less nutrient-dense treats within their calorie goal. A few ate a surprising lot of basically what people often call "junk food".
Read it, think about it. What do you think?14 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Very good article.
You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Very good article.
You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.
Wow! Okay. Give me your thoughts on how it is good. Confused how you can think other rules apply to calorie deficits.11 -
Well, when just watching my calorie intake has resulted in a 68.2-lb loss and I haven't been targeting specific macros beyond trying to get my protein and iron... I'm a bit hard-pressed to say I've been doing it wrong.11
-
Same here. Borderline high cholesterol and got my weight to normal, now I have perfect numbers all the while eating anything I want but less calories than I need.estherdragonbat wrote: »Well, when just watching my calorie intake has resulted in a 68.2-lb loss and I haven't been targeting specific macros beyond trying to get my protein and iron... I'm a bit hard-pressed to say I've been doing it wrong.
8 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Very good article.
You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Very good article.
You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.
Wow! Okay. Give me your thoughts on how it is good. Confused how you can think other rules apply to calorie deficits.
Insulin sensitivity and nutrient partitioning have a massive effect on the amount and effeciency of fat loss compared to muscle loss in a calorie deficit28 -
Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)29 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »
Same here. Borderline high cholesterol and got my weight to normal, now I have perfect numbers all the while eating anything I want but less calories than I need.estherdragonbat wrote: »Well, when just watching my calorie intake has resulted in a 68.2-lb loss and I haven't been targeting specific macros beyond trying to get my protein and iron... I'm a bit hard-pressed to say I've been doing it wrong.
50lbs lost here, while eating all sorts of processed 'diet' foods and fast food 3-4 times a week. I normalized a prediabetic glucose number in the process as well. Go figure.6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
So what though. I am happy in the way I eat and the physical things I can do. I don't want to enter into competitions or get 6 pack abs, I just want to have fun and be able to go long hiking adventures. Machu pichu is on my bucket list. I am healthy and happy.9 -
Down about 80 lbs so far by eating a little less and moving a little more.
Thinking about nutrient partitioning a Poptart as I write this.16 -
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
You took the words right out of my mouth! High Five!9 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »
Cookies and Cream! I need to find a way to combine Poptarts and alcohol for maximum nutrient partitioning!6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?19 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.21 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant that most.
And this.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Sure. I'm not a nutrition expert like you are, but it certainly seems like other factors (besides macro composition of eating or mere calorie level) affect the proportion of fat vs. lean tissue lost during weight loss, such as exercise (and even type of exercise) or weight loss rate.
That's even ignoring factors that are hugely important in weight loss as a practical matter, such as compliance or satiation. (A way of eating one can't sustain can result in slow or no weight loss, making it pretty irrelevant what percent of fat vs lean tissue would've theoretically been lost on the diet in question.)
But issues like that are discussed around here all the time, and even by CICO bigots like me.
Efficiency isn't everything either. Best balance of all the relevant factors - which is individual - is necessary. I'd rather retain muscle as much as possible while losing fat, but managing energy balance (CICO) is crucial to losing weight at all IMO, and nutrient partitioning is only one of the factors in muscle retention.
Most of us who don't do something crazy-extreme are going to lose the overwhelming of our weight from fat, perhaps a bit from lean, and gain very substantial health benefits from the totality.
Calorie counting is a practical starting point for many: Simple, achievable. I suspect many then fine-tune nutrition, exercise, etc., over time to better meet whole-life goals. Do we need to start them off with a more complicated theoretically-better mental model and a potentially bigger basket of compliance challenges?19 -
Just as the concept of CICO is over-simplified, so is Fung's argument in the article promoting LCHF in order to control insulin levels.
There is no mention of the GI (glycemic index) which is a measure of whether the carbs actually are likely to promote or depress insulin release (and hence depress or increase fat metabolism) or not and there is absolutely no discussion of the effect of the consumption of protein and its interaction w/low or hi GI carbs on insulin levels and muscle loss and/or growth either.
For another level of detail in this regard, see the following article as well:
https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html
The LCHF apporoach also does not explain how I lost about 39# of BW from 196 to 157 and dropped my BF from over 20% down to 10% in a year on a high protein high carb and low fat deficit diet with a macro ratio of 40P/40C/20F, which is entirely contrary to the LCHF concept.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions